You are here: / Municipal Law
, ,

RENTAL PERMIT REQUIRED BY TOWN CODE WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE LEASE; CODE PROVISION CREATED A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION TO SEEK RESCISSION OF THE LEASE AND RETURN OF RENT PAID.

The Second Department determined plaintiffs-lessees were entitled to bring a private action (pursuant to a provision of the town code) to rescind a lease, and were entitled to rescission and return of the paid rent. After paying $216,000 to lease defendant’s residential property for approximately 3 1/2 months, the plaintiffs learned defendant did not have a rental permit required by section 270 of the town code. The code provision was enacted to address overcrowding in properties rented for the summer. The Second Department held the code provision created a private right of action and the rental permit was a condition precedent to any lease. With respect to the private right of action, the court wrote:

 

Where, as here, a statute “does not explicitly provide for a private cause of action, recovery may be had under the statute only if a legislative intent to create such a right of action is fairly implied’ in the statutory provisions and their legislative history” … . This inquiry involves three factors: ” (1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme'” … . The third factor is often noted to be the “most important” … . Where, as here, the legislature clearly contemplated administrative enforcement of the statute, ” [t]he question then becomes whether, in addition to administrative enforcement, an implied private right of action would be consistent with the legislative scheme'”… .

The plaintiffs satisfied the first and second factors here. Town Code § 270 is intended to benefit the occupants of rental properties in the Town of Southampton by requiring owners to obtain a valid rental permit as a condition precedent to the collection of rent (see Town Code § 270-13). Moreover, the legislative purpose is promoted by preventing owners from profiting from the rental of properties that are overcrowded, substandard, or otherwise violate State and Town laws.

The third factor, requiring that a private cause of action under a statute be consistent with the legislative scheme, has also been satisfied. As the Supreme Court correctly observed, Town Code § 270 is directed toward protecting the health, safety, and well-being of persons renting homes in the Town of Southampton. In that regard, Town Code § 270-6 requires that prior to the issuance of a rental permit, the enforcement authority must “make an on-site inspection of the proposed rental property” to ensure that the property “complies with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and the Code of the Town of Southampton” (Town Code § 270-6). Although Town Code § 270 is intended to be enforced by designated Town officials and provides for penalties and fines, “without the threat of recoupment of rent, aside from the possibility of administrative enforcement, there is no incentive for a landlord to obtain a license, which is an overriding concern of the Town” … . Ader v Guzman, 2016 NY Slip Op 00137, 2nd Dept 1-13-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF SNOWMOBILE TOUR GUIDE UNDER APPARENT AGENCY THEORY)/AGENCY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF SNOWMOBILE TOUR GUIDE UNDER APPARENT AGENCY THEORY)

,

SUIT ALLEGING TOWN AND COUNTY NEGLIGENTLY ISSUED PERMITS FOR A FESTIVAL WITHOUT MAKING SURE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WERE ADEQUATE DISMISSED ON GOVERNMENTAL-IMMUNITY GROUNDS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the town’s and county’s motions for summary judgment should have been granted on governmental-immunity grounds. Plaintiff’s daughter, Bynum, ingested a harmful substance at a music festival. Plaintiff sued the town and county alleging they negligently issued the permits for the festival without making sure there were adequate emergency medical services to accommodate the crowd. The Third Department held the town and county were immune from suit because the issuance of permits is a governmental function and plaintiff did not demonstrate a special relationship between Bynum and the town or county:

 

Where, as here, a municipality engages in a quintessential governmental function such as the issuance of permits, even if it does so negligently, the municipality is immune from liability unless it owed “a special duty to the injured person, in contrast to a general duty owed to the public” … . As relevant here, to prove a special duty to Bynum, plaintiff must establish “[t]he elements of a special relationship includ[ing] . . . direct contact between the municipality’s agents and [Bynum], and [Bynum’s] justifiable reliance . . . on the municipality’s affirmative promise to act” … .

Viewing the pleadings and submissions in the light most favorable to plaintiff and providing her with every favorable inference … , we must agree with defendants that plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars are devoid of factual allegations that Bynum had any direct contact with defendants, or that she relied upon any affirmative promise that defendants’ agents would keep her safe while she attended [the festival]. Bynum v Camp Bisco, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 00091, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (TOWN AND COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN AND COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (TOWN AND COUNTY IMMUNE FROM SUIT, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)

,

THEORIES OF LIABILITY NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM THE NOTICE OF CLAIM CAN NOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS.

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly refused to allow the supplementing of a bill of particulars because the new theories of liability could not be implied from the notice of claim. This was a slip and fall case. The notice of claim alleged the fall was caused by liquid on a stair. The supplemental bill sought to allege the stair was defective and a building employee was not properly trained:

 

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, he may not rely on his testimony at his General Municipal Law § 50-H hearing to rectify any deficiencies in the notice of claim, because he never testified that there was an issue with the step itself and traditionally such testimony has only been “permitted to clarify the location of an accident or the nature of injuries, [it] may not be used to amend the theory of liability set forth in the notice of claim where, as here, amendment would change the nature of the claim'” … .

Accordingly, the motion court properly struck the allegations from the supplemental bill of particulars, as new theories of liability that cannot be fairly implied from the notice of claim, and precluded plaintiff’s expert from testifying with regard to them … . Lewis v New York City Hous. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 00040, 1st Dept 1-7-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS)/BILL OF PARTICULARS (CANNOT BE SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM)/MUNICIPAL LAW (BILL OF PARTICULARS CANNOT BE SUPPLEMENTED TO INCLUDE THEORIES NOT FAIRLY IMPLIED FROM NOTICE OF CLAIM)

, ,

SHERIFF IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF, THEREFORE, IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OR THE COUNTY; RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; SHERIFF CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN.

Plaintiff sued the county alleging plaintiff’s decedent was not properly screened and supervised when placed in the Erie County Holding Center where plaintiff’s decedent committed suicide. After the statute of limitations had run, plaintiff was allowed to add the Erie County Sheriff as a defendant. The Fourth Department reversed, explaining that the Sheriff is not vicariously liable for the actions of the Sheriff’s Department and is therefore not “united in interest” with the County/Sheriff’s Department:

In order for the relation back doctrine to apply, a plaintiff must establish that “(1) both claims arose out of [the] same conduct, transaction or occurrence, (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant[s], and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for an excusable mistake by plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him as well” … .

…. [Plaintiff did not satisfy the second prong, i.e., unity of interest. “In [the] context [of this case], unity of interest means that the interest of the parties in the [subject matter] is such that they stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other . . . Although the parties might share a multitude of commonalities, . . . the unity of interest test will not be satisfied unless the parties share precisely the same jural relationship in the action at hand . . . Indeed, unless the original defendant[s] and new [defendant] are vicariously liable for the acts of the other[,] . . . there is no unity of interest between them” … .

Here, defendant County of Erie (County) is not united in interest with the Sheriff inasmuch as the County cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of the Sheriff or his deputies … . Nor is defendant Erie County Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff’s Department) united in interest with the Sheriff for purposes of the relation back doctrine. The Sheriff is not vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of the deputies employed at the Holding Center … . In addition, the Sheriff’s Department does not have a legal identity separate from the County … , and thus an “action against the Sheriff’s Department is, in effect, an action against the County itself” … . Given that the Sheriff and the County are not united in interest, it follows that the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department are not united in interest, and the court therefore erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to add the Sheriff as a party. Johanson v County of Erie, 2015 NY Slip Op 09736, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/MUNICIPAL LAW  (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)/SHERIFF  (SHERIFF NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE COUNTY OR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT)

,

VILLAGE’S AGREEMENT TO SELL ONE MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY FOR TRANSPORT TO PENNSYLVANIA WAS A TYPE I ACTION REQUIRING SEQRA REVIEW.

Upon remittitur after reversal by the Court of Appeals, the Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s rulings re: the Water Agreement and Lease Agreement entered into by the Village of Painted Post. The Lease Agreement concerned the construction of a railroad transloading facility and the Water Agreement concerned the sale of one million gallons of water per day (gpd) to be transported (by rail) to Pennsylvania. The Fourth Department determined the Water Agreement was a Type I, not Type II, action which required review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Because the Village of Painted Post did not conduct a SEQRA review of the Water Agreement, the relevant village resolutions were annulled and a consolidated SEQRA review of both the Water Agreement and Lease Agreement was ordered:

Although the Water Agreement does not call for the use of “ground or surface water in excess of [two million gpd]” (6 NYCRR 617.4 [b] [6] [ii]) and thus is not a Type I action under that subsection, Type I actions also include “any Unlisted action[] that exceeds 25 percent of any threshold in this section, occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation area or designated open space” (6 NYCRR 617.4 [b] [10]). Where, as here, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has set a threshold clarifying that the use of a certain amount of a natural resource, e.g., land or water, constitutes a Type I action, it is reasonable to assume that the DEC has “implicitly determined that an annexation of less than [that threshold] is an [U]nlisted action’ ” … . We thus conclude therefrom that the Water Agreement is implicitly an Unlisted action. Inasmuch as there is also evidence in the record that the transloading facility may be substantially contiguous to a publicly owned park and the Water Agreement calls for the use of surface water in the amount of one million gpd, i.e., 50% of the threshold in section 617.4 (b) (6) (ii), the Water Agreement could also be deemed a Type I action under 6 NYCRR 617.4 (b) (10).

Consequently, SEQRA review was required for the Water Agreement. Although the Village conducted a SEQRA review of the Lease Agreement, segmentation, i.e., the division of environmental review for different sections or stages of a project (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [ag]), is generally disfavored … . We thus conclude that the court properly determined, on the merits of the first cause of action, that all of respondent Village’s resolutions should be annulled and that a consolidated SEQRA review of both agreements was required. Matter of Sierra Club v Village of Painted Post, 2015 NY Slip Op 09707, 4th Dept 12-31-15

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT [SEQRA] (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/WATER (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SALE OF WATER BY VILLAGE REQUIRED SEQRA REVIEW)

, , ,

RECORDINGS OF 911 CALLS RE: PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CAR ACCIDENT DISCOVERABLE IN A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION.

In a matter of first impression at the appellate level, the Second Department determined the recordings of 911 calls relating to plaintiff’s decedent’s (Reece’s) car accident were discoverable. The wrongful death action was brought against the state alleging that a traffic counting device shattered when plaintiff’s decedent’s car drove over it, puncturing the gas tank and causing a fire which killed plaintiff’s decedent and two children. The claimant served a subpoena upon non-party county for the recordings and the county moved to quash the subpoena. The Second Department held that the motion to quash was properly denied:

The County moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that under County Law § 308(4), 911 recordings and documents are not discoverable by any entity or person other than certain designated public agencies and emergency medical providers. The claimant opposed the motion and thereafter moved to compel discovery of, inter alia, the 911 tapes, arguing that they were discoverable under CPLR 3101 as material and relevant matter. Specifically, the claimant argued that the material may be expected to reveal why Reece’s vehicle left the roadway, the length of time the vehicle’s occupants experienced conscious pain and suffering, and the amount of time it took for police to respond to the scene. * * *

We view the language of County Law § 308(4) as generally prohibiting entities and private individuals from accessing 911 tapes and records … . However, the statute is not intended to prohibit the disclosure of matter that is material and relevant in a civil litigation, accessible by a so-ordered subpoena or directed by a court to be disclosed in a discovery order … . Indeed, in analogous criminal practice, 911 tapes and records are frequently made available to individual defendants as part of the People’s disclosure obligations pursuant to People v Rosario (9 NY2d 286…) and are admitted at trials to describe events as present sense impressions of witnesses … , to identify perpetrators as present sense impressions … , or as excited utterances … . Clearly, the general language of County Law § 308(4), which is part of the statute governing the establishment of an emergency 911 system in various counties, cannot be interpreted as prohibiting court-ordered discovery of 911 material in civil litigation. Anderson v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09648, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/MUNICIPAL LAW (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/EVIDENCE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/WRONGFUL DEATH (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE)/911 TAPES (DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)

FAILURE TO NAME INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS, OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS, IN A NOTICE OF CLAIM PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED IN THE COMPLAINTS.

The First Department affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of an action against the police department and several named individual police officers because the notice of claim named only the New York City Police Department as a defendant and did not name any individual officers or any “john doe” officers. Justice Sweeney explained his reasoning for affirming in a concurring memorandum. Two justices dissented in a memorandum by Justice Manzanet-Daniels. Justice Sweeney argued that the underlying purpose of a notice of claim is to allow the municipality to make a timely investigation into the allegations. By failing to name individual officers, the municipality was not given sufficient notice. The dissent argued that the General Municipal Law does not require the naming (in a notice of claim) of individual employees of a municipality to state a valid claim against employees of a municipality:

Plaintiffs here did not put the City on notice that it would seek to impose liability upon specific employees of the NYPD. Indeed, as the action progressed, more and more police officers were added as individual defendants, the last of which over three years removed from the incident in question, thus rendering a timely investigation into and assessment of the claims impossible. To permit such a result raises questions of fundamental fairness for the individual defendants, since they were not put on notice, even in a generic way by way of “Police Officer John Doe” or similar language, that they were going to become defendants. Moreover, the prejudice accruing to both the municipal and individual defendants from such a delay is obvious, since memories fade over time, records that could have easily been obtained early on may have been archived, lost or discarded, and witnesses may have relocated, just to name a few of the potential obstacles. Delay in investigating and evaluating a claim defeats the purpose of GML § 50-e. Alvarez v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09601, 1st Dept 12-29-15

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO NAME POLICE OFFICERS OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (FAILURE TO NAME POLICE OFFICERS OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED)/POLICE OFFICERS (NOTICE OF CLAIM, FAILURE TO NAME POLICE OFFICERS OR JOHN DOE OFFICERS PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST OFFICERS SUBSEQUENTLY NAMED)

AGREEMENT ALLOWING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ “HOME RULE” RIGHTS.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the petitioners, the Town of Vernon and the Town of Verona, did not have standing to attack an agreement (ratified by the New York Gaming Economic Development Act of 2013 [UNYGEDA]) allowing the Oneida Nation to implement legalized casino gambling. The towns argued that the agreement violated the towns’ “home rule” rights by removing land from their zoning and environmental authority, as well as preventing the collection of property taxes. The Third Department held that it was the placing of Oneida Nation land in trust (by the federal Department of the Interior) which caused these negative consequences and the trust was created before the agreement at issue:

These negative consequences … did not result from the agreement or from the UNYGEDA, but, instead, from the decision by the Department to place the lands in trust. That decision had already been made when the agreement was executed, and it was unaffected by any State action other than the agreement’s provision that the State and the Counties would discontinue then-pending federal litigation that challenged the Department’s decision. In 2014, the State and Counties did so … . The State has no constitutional obligation to pursue litigation, nor have petitioners established that the litigation would have resulted in the reversal of the Department’s decision to place the lands in trust if it had not been settled. Further, the discontinuance of the State’s claims did not foreclose the Towns from pursuing separate federal litigation that challenged the Department’s action, which they did until the action was dismissed on the merits in 2015 … . Thus, the State’s actions did not cause the harm that forms the basis of the Towns’ claims. Accordingly, the Towns failed to establish that the agreement and the UNYGEDA impinged upon their home rule powers, and Supreme Court properly ruled that they lacked the capacity to bring this action/proceeding. Matter of Town of Verona v Cuomo, 2015 NY Slip Op 09338, 3rd Dept 12-17-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

MUNCIPAL LAW (AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ HOME RULE RIGHTS)/HOME RULE (AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ HOME RULE RIGHTS)/GAMBLING (AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ HOME RULE RIGHTS)/ONEIDA NATION (AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ HOME RULE RIGHTS)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A STOP SIGN AT AN ACCIDENT-PRONE INTERSECTION.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the municipality should have installed an all-way stop at an intersection where plaintiff was injured. A study of the intersection by the municipality, prompted by the number of accidents, was deemed inadequate:

A municipality owes a nondelegable duty to keep its streets in a reasonably safe condition … . However, it is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway safety planning decision … . A municipality may be held liable only “when its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan” … . * * *

“Once [a municipality] is made aware of a dangerous traffic condition it must undertake reasonable study thereof with an eye toward alleviating the danger” … . “Moreover, after the [municipality] implements a traffic plan it is under a continuing duty to review its plan in the light of its actual operation'” … . Under these circumstances, the City’s submissions revealed triable issues of fact regarding the adequacy of the … 2008 re-evaluation of its prior study which it undertook to complete, and the reasonableness of the City’s failure to install a stop sign … at the intersection under all of the attendant circumstances … . Langer v Xenias, 2015 NY Slip Op 09258. 2nd Dept 12-16-15

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LIABILITY, FAILURE INSTALL STOP SIGN)/MUNICIPAL LAW (LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL STOP SIGN)/TRAFFIC PLAN (MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL STOP SIGN)

,

NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY AND PLAINTIFF; CITY WAS THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM SUIT.

The Second Department determined no special relationship existed between plaintiff, a city sanitation worker, and the city (NYC). Therefore, the city was protected from plaintiff’s suit by the doctrine of governmental immunity. Plaintiff was attacked by a participant in a community service program with whom plaintiff was working. The gravaman of plaintiff’s complaint was the city’s failure to provide security. The provision of security is a governmental, not proprietary, function. Therefore, absent a special relationship between the plaintiff and the city, the city was immune from suit. Giordanella v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09251, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

NEGLIGENCE (GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY, GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/MUNICIPAL LAW (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP)/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy